KATE SAYS everybody does the scrolled words!
That 70's Show is one of those shows that I enjoy but don't watch that often. However, I happen to adore Kurtwood Smith and consider Debra Jo Rupp one of the funniest comediennes on television. Interestingly enough, she shows up in our other sitcom as Phoebe's sister-in-law.
Subsequently, my favorite episodes from That 70's Show highlight the dad and mom characters. And Smith makes an awesome Obi Wan Kenobi. In general, I think the "adults" on the show far funnier than the "kids" though Topher Grace does make a good, believable Luke.
Regarding Friends . . . well, Mike will have to speak to the Princess Leia fantasy. In general, I like Friends' episodes that highlight Monica and Chandler far more than I like episodes that highlight Rachel and Ross. This episode happens to fall in the season where Ross and Rachel eventually break up (for the first time) because of their ridiculous, infantile personalities. So it's kind of hard to watch.
Which doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it; Friends is so well-written, it is hard not to enjoy. And the episode did send me back to Return of the Jedi for possibly the first time in about 20 years.
And . . . I decided that although Return of the Jedi is better by far than Lucas's prequels (the story is at least a narrative about individuals rather than a badly-written "political" drama), I still hate the Ewoks. Even as a teen, I found the idea of winning a war with teddy bears absolutely ridiculous. As an adult, let me tell you, wooden spears and Tarzan ropes will NOT win against armor and freaking big guns. It just don't happen.
Outside their relationship to Star Wars, however, both sitcoms hit a nerve/raise an issue with me: the idea that sci-fi is ONLY the province of geeky males. I suppose this is true enough to make it sitcom fodder (even on Big Bang Theory, for shame). But since I'm a fan of such writers as Connie Willis, C.J. Cherryh, and Diana Wynne Jones, I get tired of the assumption that women are NEVER interested in sci-fi.
And yet . . . having written the above, I have to admit, I prefer my sci-fi people-oriented to machine-oriented (although I still consider Iron Man one of the best of the Marvel movies). And I completely support the idea that woman/male interests are not merely due to social conditioning; brain-wiring, hormones/physical development are also factors.
On the other other hand, rather than argue that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, I agree with those who contend that men are from North Dakota and women are from South Dakota. Or, at least, North Vulcan and South Vulcan.
MIKE SAYS this post is so late, I probably shouldn't comment on it. I could go on explaining a whole lot of stuff, or, I could apologize, so, I'm sorry!
The Friends episode took me back; the Ross/Rachel relationship was the talk of the hallways in school, and the whole will they/won't they thing was the stuff of legend. After watching the episode, I'm not sure what surprised me more: how much I remembered of what was going on, or just how much they crammed into one episode! Each character, with the exception of Phoebe, had their own little arc, though the Leia fantasy was little more than a running gag. Star Wars in general wasn't really mentioned.
As far as the Princess Leia fantasy goes, well, to be honest, my first viewing of this episode back in the 90's may have been the first time it ever occurred to me to think of Leia or the golden bikini in that way. And in the years since, well, Carrie Fisher isn't really my type. As such, I can't really speak to the whole gold bikini fantasy other than this: For most guys my age, Leia was the first character we saw in such a state of undress, and well, she kicked some serious butt in the meantime. So it's easy to see how that might be the first real fantasy of a lot of guys... though I think it'd take a pretty adventurous and non-judgmental woman to fulfill that for them.
That 70's Show has become a favorite in my house in the last few months. Not only is it witty, fun, and nostalgic, but it's great to see how some ideas, worries, and dumb decisions really are timeless. The episode about Star Wars strikes me on numerous levels.... like the shoe string budget of the dream sequence. The cool thing is that I actually owned the remote control light saber that Eric uses in the sequence (which was a model of The Return of the Jedi saber).
Between the two episodes, Star Wars fuels fantasies that affect how we see the world, which is really what fiction and film is all about. The whole point is that we might be able to see our lives in more exciting way, and see news ways of facing our fears. Star Wars is one of the best ways to do this, especially for those whose lives aren't nearly as... fulfilling.
The best advice that I gleaned from these episodes may be this: If you ever fantasize about being a character in Star Wars, it may be better for everyone if you keep it to yourself.
Showing posts with label Sitcoms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sitcoms. Show all posts
Monday, November 18, 2013
Friday, February 18, 2011
Home Improvement
Kate says the thing that gets me with Home Improvement is I shouldn't be such a fan. I like Tim Allen (he is marvelous in Galaxy Quest), but I'm not a devotee, and I don't think I saw any of The Santa Clause movies. I'm not into cars. I'm not a huge fan of scatological humor. And I don't really like mean, male humor.
Yet, for some reason, I really like this show. I've seen all the seasons several times--once in order through Netflix, again by catching an episode here and there on television.
I think one reason is that everyone is trying to be nice without being sticky-sweet. The most noticeable aspect of the pilot to me is how amused Jill is of Tim (more about this later). I kind of get tired of Tim picking on Al sometimes, but Al gets his own back many, many times (he has a bigger fan club for one thing).
In fact, the bit parts are as lovingly done as the main parts. Richard Karn really did make a place for himself. (In the first season, he isn't listed in the main credits.). Earl Hindeman's role, though established from the beginning, gained umph, not to mention a long-standing joke!
Another reason I like the show is that the problems--and the advice--are real and practical. There's a great exchange that I plan to use in my Interpersonal Communications class where Jill and Tim realize that they have both been communicating in a way that assumes the other person communicates in the same way.
And finally, I confess I really do like watching Tim blow up dishwashers/drop steel beams on cars/get covered in . . . well, you name it. Yeah, we all got a little destructive monster in us. (And Tim's electrically damaged dance is cute.)
About Jill and Tim's relationship, Home Improvement has often been pointed to as the ultimate man-is-stupid-wife-is-smart show. I think this is unfair. Tim Allen was more interested in wife-husband relationships than in proving that men or women were better than the other. Since the show is told from Tim's point of view, he is, by default, the protagonist that changes the most. But that's typical for the protagonist.
And, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Tim's jokes and insights are still relevant! I guess the men-and-women-are-different folks have won. (Seriously, was there really ever any doubt?)
Mike says that Home Improvement is the most guy accessible sitcom in existence. Even though I wasn't much of a tool/car kid, I still enjoyed this show a lot. Even now, Home Improvement is funny and heartfelt, communicating good stuff without the sticky sweet candy coating like on older sitcoms.
Everything about the show works well: a house full of boys, Tim Allen grunting around, Wilson in the faceless wise-man role, and Al as the sidekick. Tool Time is where the bulk of the show's comedy comes from, showing Tim's unbridled enthusiasm leading to cool and silly moments. My favorite segments where always "The Man's...." room clips. All guys love gadgets and seeing entire rooms tricked out to enable slothfulness was awesome.
I enjoyed all of the characters, and it was cool to see that Al was introduced a little more bumbling than later in the show, as the cool, confident, and maybe more skilled sidekick. And I always get a kick out of Wilson--in fact most of the words of wisdom I enjoyed as a kid came from him.
The pilot is a good introduction to the show and really runs with the concept. The man/women stuff is a major part of the show, and it was always handled well.... BUT.
I always found Jill kind of annoying. I'm not entirely sure why. The writers were always changing her, almost as if they were trying to find the right fit. The actress playing Jill also kept asking for her role to be expanded, for Jill to be more assertive and successful. And somehow this made Jill really grating.
The truly sad part is that the end of the show could be laid at her feet, as she's said if it were to continue, she'd want Tim and Jill to have more serious problems. Which is ridiculous! The thing that makes Home Improvement work is that Tim has this down-to-earth wife who puts up with him--he can be himself, only having to change the more "primitive" parts of the male personality. To introduce problems would make it suddenly bad to be a man, and Tim would have to face changes that would change the show.
Anyway, despite being a lot of fun, Home Improvement did have some missteps, Goth Mark and the ambiguous ending of the show being most prominent in my mind.
Overall, though, Home Improvement was about the glories and the troubles of being a man in today's world. And, for the ladies, how to put up with said man. A wonderfully warm and funny show, I really enjoyed watching it again.
Yet, for some reason, I really like this show. I've seen all the seasons several times--once in order through Netflix, again by catching an episode here and there on television.
I think one reason is that everyone is trying to be nice without being sticky-sweet. The most noticeable aspect of the pilot to me is how amused Jill is of Tim (more about this later). I kind of get tired of Tim picking on Al sometimes, but Al gets his own back many, many times (he has a bigger fan club for one thing).
In fact, the bit parts are as lovingly done as the main parts. Richard Karn really did make a place for himself. (In the first season, he isn't listed in the main credits.). Earl Hindeman's role, though established from the beginning, gained umph, not to mention a long-standing joke!
Another reason I like the show is that the problems--and the advice--are real and practical. There's a great exchange that I plan to use in my Interpersonal Communications class where Jill and Tim realize that they have both been communicating in a way that assumes the other person communicates in the same way.
And finally, I confess I really do like watching Tim blow up dishwashers/drop steel beams on cars/get covered in . . . well, you name it. Yeah, we all got a little destructive monster in us. (And Tim's electrically damaged dance is cute.)
About Jill and Tim's relationship, Home Improvement has often been pointed to as the ultimate man-is-stupid-wife-is-smart show. I think this is unfair. Tim Allen was more interested in wife-husband relationships than in proving that men or women were better than the other. Since the show is told from Tim's point of view, he is, by default, the protagonist that changes the most. But that's typical for the protagonist.
And, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Tim's jokes and insights are still relevant! I guess the men-and-women-are-different folks have won. (Seriously, was there really ever any doubt?)
Mike says that Home Improvement is the most guy accessible sitcom in existence. Even though I wasn't much of a tool/car kid, I still enjoyed this show a lot. Even now, Home Improvement is funny and heartfelt, communicating good stuff without the sticky sweet candy coating like on older sitcoms.
Everything about the show works well: a house full of boys, Tim Allen grunting around, Wilson in the faceless wise-man role, and Al as the sidekick. Tool Time is where the bulk of the show's comedy comes from, showing Tim's unbridled enthusiasm leading to cool and silly moments. My favorite segments where always "The Man's...." room clips. All guys love gadgets and seeing entire rooms tricked out to enable slothfulness was awesome.
I enjoyed all of the characters, and it was cool to see that Al was introduced a little more bumbling than later in the show, as the cool, confident, and maybe more skilled sidekick. And I always get a kick out of Wilson--in fact most of the words of wisdom I enjoyed as a kid came from him.
The pilot is a good introduction to the show and really runs with the concept. The man/women stuff is a major part of the show, and it was always handled well.... BUT.
I always found Jill kind of annoying. I'm not entirely sure why. The writers were always changing her, almost as if they were trying to find the right fit. The actress playing Jill also kept asking for her role to be expanded, for Jill to be more assertive and successful. And somehow this made Jill really grating.
The truly sad part is that the end of the show could be laid at her feet, as she's said if it were to continue, she'd want Tim and Jill to have more serious problems. Which is ridiculous! The thing that makes Home Improvement work is that Tim has this down-to-earth wife who puts up with him--he can be himself, only having to change the more "primitive" parts of the male personality. To introduce problems would make it suddenly bad to be a man, and Tim would have to face changes that would change the show.
Anyway, despite being a lot of fun, Home Improvement did have some missteps, Goth Mark and the ambiguous ending of the show being most prominent in my mind.
Overall, though, Home Improvement was about the glories and the troubles of being a man in today's world. And, for the ladies, how to put up with said man. A wonderfully warm and funny show, I really enjoyed watching it again.
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Friday, February 11, 2011
Full House
Mike says that the mullet's popularity proves beyond a doubt that the end of times are upon us. While watching Full House, John Stamos' mullet constantly reminded me why the earth would eventually be purged by fire. I mean, how else can we rid ourselves of something so evil?
BRRRRRRRRR.
ANYWAY, sorry. So, Full House. Yeah. For eighties sitcoms about non-traditional families, Full House was really the benchmark and mold for the lot. As Kate says later, it has all the required elements, and all the stereotypes such a show would have. As such . . . it's rather painful for me to watch.
While much easier to look at production-wise, Full House really comes from the same place as Family Ties, but much more bubble gum. Sickly sweet dialogue and moral, happy endings, quick judgments and quick apologies, and a good dose of the warm fuzzies. Yikes. I quickly popped in the most violent movie I could find to cleanse the pallet.
Seriously though, Full House is pretty well-crafted. The characters and cast balance well, and the idea is pretty solid. There is a reason this show became the powerhouse that it was. As family programing, the show really had something for everyone (well, except for the fathers in the audience... they probably just liked it when it was over). Cute kids, even cuter baby, smoking sexy rock star, super-sensitive Bob Saget (so . . . did they ever reveal if his character was gay?), and silly comedy guy. A diverse group that really had mass appeal.
As a kid, I think I liked it . . . I know my Mom did. Watching it now, however, I can say I honestly wouldn't mind my son watching it. It has good values, and it's a show I feel safe about him watching. But if I was in the living room with him? Well . . . we would be watching something else.
Kate says the main thing I remembered thinking about Full House when it originally aired was "Will John Stamos ever cut his hair?"
Yeah, I've never been a big fan of a the mullet.
I still wish he would cut his hair (he eventually does).
Aside from hair, Full House is the ultimate cutesy sit-com. And it has all the ingredients:
GUYS WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO CHANGE DIAPERS (as Leonard says to Penny, "What's up with that?")
BABIES WHO LOOK LIKE PRECIOUS MOMENT DOLLS!
PRECOCIOUS CHILDREN!
THE GUY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE CUTE AND FUNNY MAKING CUTE AND FUNNY NOISES!
THE GUY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE SEXY BEING SARCASTIC AND LOOKING HOT!
A LESSON!!!
The LESSON is the ultimate purpose of this type of show: D.J. moves back into her room! D.J. and Steph learn to like school! Jesse and Danny learn to be friends with women!
And here's the thing--I might not have a yen for this type of show anymore (I must have once since I've seen a number of Full House episodes), but Full House does it better than just about any other sitcom of its type and era. The scripts just barrel towards that lesson at a million-miles-per-hour (the pilot is something of an exception, but then pilots always have to expend time on establishing who is who).
As you know, if you've read the Star Trek review, while I have outgrown my yen for playful (as opposed to witty) dialog, I still have a yen for tightly plotted television. Act I (problem), Act II (rising action), Act III (solution). It makes me happy at a very aesthetic level.
And not all the Full House lines are completely lacking in wit. I got a kick out of the girls saying to Uncle Jesse, "We only took advantage of you because you had absolutely no idea what you were doing." And the singing stuff is actually very funny and clever.
And, okay (I might as well be honest), I can be very girly and coy about sticky-sweet-sentiment. In any case, Full House sentiment bothers me less than Night Court sentiment. I think this is because Full House sentiment is anticipated. It is what it proclaims itself to be ("Hi, we are a squishy family show about squishy family values involving three unrelated men who spend way more time together than most men do and all in a really stellar townhouse!"). But Night Court starts to go in the sarcasm direction and then suddenly Harry is hugging people right and left.
Again, as Leonard would say to Penny, "What's up with that?"
(By the way, Night Court is worth watching for John Larroquette and his very long legs but also for Brent Spiner's reoccurring role as Bob Wheeler.)
BRRRRRRRRR.
ANYWAY, sorry. So, Full House. Yeah. For eighties sitcoms about non-traditional families, Full House was really the benchmark and mold for the lot. As Kate says later, it has all the required elements, and all the stereotypes such a show would have. As such . . . it's rather painful for me to watch.
While much easier to look at production-wise, Full House really comes from the same place as Family Ties, but much more bubble gum. Sickly sweet dialogue and moral, happy endings, quick judgments and quick apologies, and a good dose of the warm fuzzies. Yikes. I quickly popped in the most violent movie I could find to cleanse the pallet.
Seriously though, Full House is pretty well-crafted. The characters and cast balance well, and the idea is pretty solid. There is a reason this show became the powerhouse that it was. As family programing, the show really had something for everyone (well, except for the fathers in the audience... they probably just liked it when it was over). Cute kids, even cuter baby, smoking sexy rock star, super-sensitive Bob Saget (so . . . did they ever reveal if his character was gay?), and silly comedy guy. A diverse group that really had mass appeal.
As a kid, I think I liked it . . . I know my Mom did. Watching it now, however, I can say I honestly wouldn't mind my son watching it. It has good values, and it's a show I feel safe about him watching. But if I was in the living room with him? Well . . . we would be watching something else.
Kate says the main thing I remembered thinking about Full House when it originally aired was "Will John Stamos ever cut his hair?"
Yeah, I've never been a big fan of a the mullet.
I still wish he would cut his hair (he eventually does).
Aside from hair, Full House is the ultimate cutesy sit-com. And it has all the ingredients:
GUYS WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO CHANGE DIAPERS (as Leonard says to Penny, "What's up with that?")
BABIES WHO LOOK LIKE PRECIOUS MOMENT DOLLS!
PRECOCIOUS CHILDREN!
THE GUY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE CUTE AND FUNNY MAKING CUTE AND FUNNY NOISES!
THE GUY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE SEXY BEING SARCASTIC AND LOOKING HOT!
A LESSON!!!
The LESSON is the ultimate purpose of this type of show: D.J. moves back into her room! D.J. and Steph learn to like school! Jesse and Danny learn to be friends with women!
And here's the thing--I might not have a yen for this type of show anymore (I must have once since I've seen a number of Full House episodes), but Full House does it better than just about any other sitcom of its type and era. The scripts just barrel towards that lesson at a million-miles-per-hour (the pilot is something of an exception, but then pilots always have to expend time on establishing who is who).
As you know, if you've read the Star Trek review, while I have outgrown my yen for playful (as opposed to witty) dialog, I still have a yen for tightly plotted television. Act I (problem), Act II (rising action), Act III (solution). It makes me happy at a very aesthetic level.
And not all the Full House lines are completely lacking in wit. I got a kick out of the girls saying to Uncle Jesse, "We only took advantage of you because you had absolutely no idea what you were doing." And the singing stuff is actually very funny and clever.
And, okay (I might as well be honest), I can be very girly and coy about sticky-sweet-sentiment. In any case, Full House sentiment bothers me less than Night Court sentiment. I think this is because Full House sentiment is anticipated. It is what it proclaims itself to be ("Hi, we are a squishy family show about squishy family values involving three unrelated men who spend way more time together than most men do and all in a really stellar townhouse!"). But Night Court starts to go in the sarcasm direction and then suddenly Harry is hugging people right and left.
Again, as Leonard would say to Penny, "What's up with that?"
(By the way, Night Court is worth watching for John Larroquette and his very long legs but also for Brent Spiner's reoccurring role as Bob Wheeler.)
Labels:
Children,
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Friday, February 4, 2011
The Cosby Show
Kate says Cosby makes The Cosby Show work.
I grew up on Cosby, Cosby before The Cosby Show--the stand-up comedy he did about growing up in Philadelphia, etc. My life has never been anything like either Cosby's real life (before or after he became famous) or his fictional life, but I can still totally relate to his childhood reminiscences: go-cart races, fear of scary movies, weird childhood games.
This use of universal experiences (tapping into universal emotions) is, of course, Cosby's strength, and The Cosby Show exhibits that strength: basic experiences that every family goes through.
And the show is pretty strong right out of the box. The three youngest children are fairly good comedic actors; Phylicia Rashad is way up there with Julie Andrews as a true lady (with a yen for sly, understated comedy). And Cosby is excellent, of course.
The weird thing is, I have almost no desire to watch the show. I mean, if it is on somewhere, I watch it and enjoy it. But I haven't made any effort to request more than the first season through my library, and I could request all the seasons if I wanted. I have almost no idea WHY I'm not more interested. I enjoyed The Cosby Show when it was on, and he is probably the best stand-up comedian out of all the actors we have watched for this particular list.
I think it may be that I have to be in the mood to watch COSBY--and I actually enjoy listening to him more. (I have three Cosby CDs in my Media Player library, and "Chicken Heart" can send me to the floor every time.) I don't really need the show itself.
To elaborate--to get Alex P. Keaton, you have to watch Family Ties, no matter how lame an individual episode may be. But to get Cosby, you can watch The Cosby Show or watch his stand-up comedy or listen to his stand-up comedy. (I also like "Shop Class" although "Buck Buck" followed by "9th Street Bridge" is a classic--"I told you that story to tell you this one.") But you don't NEED the show. Rudy is cute; Theo is the best of the younger actors; Vanessa has good timing; Clair, again, is fantastically lovely and poised and elegant. But you don't really need them to get COSBY.
Still, The Cosby Show did deserve its success. Although COSBY is the engine as well as the purpose, the family is skillfully used to make his comedy possible. And the lack of outrageous sentiment is refreshing.
If I had cable, I would probably watch it more often . . . okay, honestly, this is one reason I don't have cable; there would be way too many excuses to come home from work and just watch television!
Mike says I LOVE the Cosby Show. Despite not really being in the demographic. Bill, of course, is the main high point of the show, but the cast works so well as an ensemble, it's impossible not to think of them as a true family.
I'm an odd duck, if you haven't figured that out already. In order for me to find a character funny, I have to like them. As most comedies and sitcoms these days focus on mean-spirited characters, I don't watch a lot of comedy. Cosby, however, I can watch over and over.
I think what I enjoy is the family dynamic. The Huxtables are good parents--but also REAL parents. You don't have any of that touchy-feely reconciliation you saw on Full House or Family Ties. You saw real parents, occasionally telling their kids that they're gonna die, or that they're stupid, while at the same time communicating that they care.
One of my favorite episodes (I've even used it for work) is when the family decides to give Theo a weekend in the real world. The entire episode is a life lesson about expense, responsibility, and decision making. I Sometimes wonder if the "Love and Logic system" was based on Bill Cosby.
Probably the biggest difference from pilot to series (aside from the house redesign) is Clair. In the first episode she is very much a house wife. But she is soon moved into the position of a working and successful mother. To have her be a lawyer was a brilliant move. Instead of shows like Roseanne that showed parents with no ambition or drive, Cosby Show set a strong example of people achieving the goals set for themselves. VERY cool.
But aside from all that, Cosby in honestly a riot. I can laugh my butt off every time.
I grew up on Cosby, Cosby before The Cosby Show--the stand-up comedy he did about growing up in Philadelphia, etc. My life has never been anything like either Cosby's real life (before or after he became famous) or his fictional life, but I can still totally relate to his childhood reminiscences: go-cart races, fear of scary movies, weird childhood games.
This use of universal experiences (tapping into universal emotions) is, of course, Cosby's strength, and The Cosby Show exhibits that strength: basic experiences that every family goes through.
And the show is pretty strong right out of the box. The three youngest children are fairly good comedic actors; Phylicia Rashad is way up there with Julie Andrews as a true lady (with a yen for sly, understated comedy). And Cosby is excellent, of course.
The weird thing is, I have almost no desire to watch the show. I mean, if it is on somewhere, I watch it and enjoy it. But I haven't made any effort to request more than the first season through my library, and I could request all the seasons if I wanted. I have almost no idea WHY I'm not more interested. I enjoyed The Cosby Show when it was on, and he is probably the best stand-up comedian out of all the actors we have watched for this particular list.
I think it may be that I have to be in the mood to watch COSBY--and I actually enjoy listening to him more. (I have three Cosby CDs in my Media Player library, and "Chicken Heart" can send me to the floor every time.) I don't really need the show itself.
To elaborate--to get Alex P. Keaton, you have to watch Family Ties, no matter how lame an individual episode may be. But to get Cosby, you can watch The Cosby Show or watch his stand-up comedy or listen to his stand-up comedy. (I also like "Shop Class" although "Buck Buck" followed by "9th Street Bridge" is a classic--"I told you that story to tell you this one.") But you don't NEED the show. Rudy is cute; Theo is the best of the younger actors; Vanessa has good timing; Clair, again, is fantastically lovely and poised and elegant. But you don't really need them to get COSBY.
Still, The Cosby Show did deserve its success. Although COSBY is the engine as well as the purpose, the family is skillfully used to make his comedy possible. And the lack of outrageous sentiment is refreshing.
If I had cable, I would probably watch it more often . . . okay, honestly, this is one reason I don't have cable; there would be way too many excuses to come home from work and just watch television!
Mike says I LOVE the Cosby Show. Despite not really being in the demographic. Bill, of course, is the main high point of the show, but the cast works so well as an ensemble, it's impossible not to think of them as a true family.
I'm an odd duck, if you haven't figured that out already. In order for me to find a character funny, I have to like them. As most comedies and sitcoms these days focus on mean-spirited characters, I don't watch a lot of comedy. Cosby, however, I can watch over and over.
I think what I enjoy is the family dynamic. The Huxtables are good parents--but also REAL parents. You don't have any of that touchy-feely reconciliation you saw on Full House or Family Ties. You saw real parents, occasionally telling their kids that they're gonna die, or that they're stupid, while at the same time communicating that they care.
One of my favorite episodes (I've even used it for work) is when the family decides to give Theo a weekend in the real world. The entire episode is a life lesson about expense, responsibility, and decision making. I Sometimes wonder if the "Love and Logic system" was based on Bill Cosby.
Probably the biggest difference from pilot to series (aside from the house redesign) is Clair. In the first episode she is very much a house wife. But she is soon moved into the position of a working and successful mother. To have her be a lawyer was a brilliant move. Instead of shows like Roseanne that showed parents with no ambition or drive, Cosby Show set a strong example of people achieving the goals set for themselves. VERY cool.
But aside from all that, Cosby in honestly a riot. I can laugh my butt off every time.
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Friday, January 28, 2011
Family Ties
Mike says: I have definitely been spoiled by modern television.
Family Ties was one of the staple shows of my childhood, yet I didn't really connect much with it. Michael J Fox was cool and all, but the whole liberal family in a conservative world wasn't really my family- we were Mormons in southern California.
Watching the show now, I get it. I even grin at the stereotypical Republican and liberal ideals clashing. I even think this show was needed- it effectively told the tale of the transition between two generations- two times of change. The Conservative revolution of the eighties is definitely worth comparing to the liberal uprising of the sixties. And to do it in a family setting really is brilliant.
The problem is- I just found the whole thing annoying.
To be fair, I only watched the first few episodes, and every show gets better with time: the actors learn their roles, the production runs smoother, etc. But watching the first disc of Family Ties was not an entirely joyful experience for me. As I said, I think I've just been spoiled by higher production budgets and modern technology.
Aside from the overall look of the show (bleh), the acting was bordering on awful. There were some cute jokes, and some nice ideas, but as the show hit every required mark for a family sitcom, it just wasn't fun to watch. I knew how each episode would end, I knew where it would go, and I wasn't terribly interested in finding out if I was right.
I can absolutely see why this show was so loved, as I think it reflected exactly what was going on in the homes during this time. That transition of the baby boomers into adults really was an interesting time. But, it doesn't really apply to me. To get that, I have to watch Big Bang Theory.
Kate says I get a kick out of Family Ties, but I have to agree with Mike that it comes off as slightly dated in a way that, oddly enough, much older shows like Barney Miller don't. I think this is due to the 80's--it suddenly became a requirement that all shows have a sentimental theme where people hugged at the end. Family Ties does this to the nth degree.
Having said that, I think Family Ties did a few things right, namely, the real middle-class aura to the family/home, the conservatism of Alex B. Keaton, and Michael J. Fox. First, the family/home feel real to me--the house seems lived in; the family relationships believable. Second, Alex B. Keaton's conservatism is treated as a joke (and Alex is almost always proved wrong by his super-enlightened parents), but his conservatism isn't treated like a dangerous disease that must be cured but rather as a characteristic that makes him unique. It's a kind of tolerance that I sometimes think modern television is missing.
Third, Family Ties is also great to watch as the vehicle that propelled Michael J. Fox deservedly to fandom. He, Michael Gross, and Meredith Baxter push the show forward. His comedic ability shines (in the first season, Tom Hanks shows up for a two-parter; he also shines; within a year, Tom Hanks was in movies, and Fox wasn't far behind; this was in the days when moving over to movies was the raison d'etre of television stars).
I do think the show improves later as it becomes more about the family and as some characters, like Skippy, gain bigger comedic roles. Ultimately, I think the family makes us care about them. I would agree, however, that the writing is not quite as high as most of the shows on this list. For the 80's, though, it was fairly impressive. Hmmm, what does that say about the 80's?
Family Ties was one of the staple shows of my childhood, yet I didn't really connect much with it. Michael J Fox was cool and all, but the whole liberal family in a conservative world wasn't really my family- we were Mormons in southern California.
Watching the show now, I get it. I even grin at the stereotypical Republican and liberal ideals clashing. I even think this show was needed- it effectively told the tale of the transition between two generations- two times of change. The Conservative revolution of the eighties is definitely worth comparing to the liberal uprising of the sixties. And to do it in a family setting really is brilliant.
The problem is- I just found the whole thing annoying.
To be fair, I only watched the first few episodes, and every show gets better with time: the actors learn their roles, the production runs smoother, etc. But watching the first disc of Family Ties was not an entirely joyful experience for me. As I said, I think I've just been spoiled by higher production budgets and modern technology.
Aside from the overall look of the show (bleh), the acting was bordering on awful. There were some cute jokes, and some nice ideas, but as the show hit every required mark for a family sitcom, it just wasn't fun to watch. I knew how each episode would end, I knew where it would go, and I wasn't terribly interested in finding out if I was right.
I can absolutely see why this show was so loved, as I think it reflected exactly what was going on in the homes during this time. That transition of the baby boomers into adults really was an interesting time. But, it doesn't really apply to me. To get that, I have to watch Big Bang Theory.
Kate says I get a kick out of Family Ties, but I have to agree with Mike that it comes off as slightly dated in a way that, oddly enough, much older shows like Barney Miller don't. I think this is due to the 80's--it suddenly became a requirement that all shows have a sentimental theme where people hugged at the end. Family Ties does this to the nth degree.
Having said that, I think Family Ties did a few things right, namely, the real middle-class aura to the family/home, the conservatism of Alex B. Keaton, and Michael J. Fox. First, the family/home feel real to me--the house seems lived in; the family relationships believable. Second, Alex B. Keaton's conservatism is treated as a joke (and Alex is almost always proved wrong by his super-enlightened parents), but his conservatism isn't treated like a dangerous disease that must be cured but rather as a characteristic that makes him unique. It's a kind of tolerance that I sometimes think modern television is missing.
Third, Family Ties is also great to watch as the vehicle that propelled Michael J. Fox deservedly to fandom. He, Michael Gross, and Meredith Baxter push the show forward. His comedic ability shines (in the first season, Tom Hanks shows up for a two-parter; he also shines; within a year, Tom Hanks was in movies, and Fox wasn't far behind; this was in the days when moving over to movies was the raison d'etre of television stars).
I do think the show improves later as it becomes more about the family and as some characters, like Skippy, gain bigger comedic roles. Ultimately, I think the family makes us care about them. I would agree, however, that the writing is not quite as high as most of the shows on this list. For the 80's, though, it was fairly impressive. Hmmm, what does that say about the 80's?
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Monday, January 24, 2011
Dharma & Greg
Kate says I completely and totally love this show!
Dharma & Greg is pre-Bones which means that until Dharma & Greg came along, I hadn't seen that many shows with fun, working relationships. It seemed like most shows on television were either of the Moonlighting variety (season after season of the gal and guy harassing and mocking each other; honestly, I don't get it) or sitcoms of husbands and wives arguing incessantly about how much the other person doesn't understand them.
Dharma & Greg was such a breath of fresh air!
The writing is so smart, it never ceases to amaze me. For instance, even though the show is supposedly about two opposites getting married, Dharma and Greg are better described as complementary. Dharma, for all her parents' freewheeling ways, wants the kind of stability that Greg offers. She is also far more like Greg's mother, in terms of ambition and chutzpah, than anyone will ever admit.
And Greg needs a truly independent person who supports but doesn't stereotype him; he's a country-club guy who needs the option of a non-country-club life. The episode when his ex-girlfriend comes back illustrates this point; she is a perfectly lovely person, but, as Greg points out to Dharma, "It doesn't matter if there's someone out there on paper who is perfect for you because I love you." At the end of the episode, after meeting a pro-yoga guy with hippy parents, Dharma can say back to Greg, "I met the perfect person, but I'm going home with the man I love." Biographical similarities do not necessarily translate into psychological and spiritual compatibility.
The show not only has good writing, it has a phenomenal cast. Alan Rachins, Susan Sullivan, and Mimi Kennedy are talented, versatile actors. Thomas Gibson has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to move between drama and comedy (his character on Criminal Minds is a button-down, humorless version of Greg, but if I'd seen Criminal Minds before Dharma & Greg, I never would have believed it was the same guy). Jenna Elfman is more of a single-genre gal. I can't imagine her doing drama. But as a comedienne, she is first-rate--top of the line.
It still surprises me that this show was produced by Chuck Lorre. Chuck Lorre produced Dharma & Greg, Big Bang Theory, and Two and 1/2 Men. Two shows I adore out of three is pretty impressive!
Mike says that when your shakras are misaligned, your chi goes all "Blarrrghhh!"
Dharma & Greg is a cute, fun show. When it was originally on the air, I didn't care for it much. Even now, while I find it genuinely funny, I can"t help but fear that the pair were kinda thrown together with absolutely no real reason to be together. But, what Kate says above is true: the two DO compliment one another.
This show is a great example of a formula that works so well, it works almost too well; after a while the audience gets bored with the pair being so happy, and DRAMA enters the fray. Unfortunately, I think it was at this point the show was canceled, leaving many fans unhappy.
I found the dialogue and the humor extremely effective in the show, and more so than I remember. The characters are also really fun and well acted, but Dharma is so off the wall she's hard to really get close too; she's so unpredictable I sometimes wonder if on a whim she'll leave Greg for a random street musician.
Overall this is a really fun show, and it's got some good laughs. I think the only thing I really kinda wish is that we understood or saw more of why the two love each other so much--while love at first sight it fantastic and wonderful and romantic, it doesn't do a whole lot for character development.
Dharma & Greg is pre-Bones which means that until Dharma & Greg came along, I hadn't seen that many shows with fun, working relationships. It seemed like most shows on television were either of the Moonlighting variety (season after season of the gal and guy harassing and mocking each other; honestly, I don't get it) or sitcoms of husbands and wives arguing incessantly about how much the other person doesn't understand them.
Dharma & Greg was such a breath of fresh air!
The writing is so smart, it never ceases to amaze me. For instance, even though the show is supposedly about two opposites getting married, Dharma and Greg are better described as complementary. Dharma, for all her parents' freewheeling ways, wants the kind of stability that Greg offers. She is also far more like Greg's mother, in terms of ambition and chutzpah, than anyone will ever admit.
And Greg needs a truly independent person who supports but doesn't stereotype him; he's a country-club guy who needs the option of a non-country-club life. The episode when his ex-girlfriend comes back illustrates this point; she is a perfectly lovely person, but, as Greg points out to Dharma, "It doesn't matter if there's someone out there on paper who is perfect for you because I love you." At the end of the episode, after meeting a pro-yoga guy with hippy parents, Dharma can say back to Greg, "I met the perfect person, but I'm going home with the man I love." Biographical similarities do not necessarily translate into psychological and spiritual compatibility.
The show not only has good writing, it has a phenomenal cast. Alan Rachins, Susan Sullivan, and Mimi Kennedy are talented, versatile actors. Thomas Gibson has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to move between drama and comedy (his character on Criminal Minds is a button-down, humorless version of Greg, but if I'd seen Criminal Minds before Dharma & Greg, I never would have believed it was the same guy). Jenna Elfman is more of a single-genre gal. I can't imagine her doing drama. But as a comedienne, she is first-rate--top of the line.
It still surprises me that this show was produced by Chuck Lorre. Chuck Lorre produced Dharma & Greg, Big Bang Theory, and Two and 1/2 Men. Two shows I adore out of three is pretty impressive!
Mike says that when your shakras are misaligned, your chi goes all "Blarrrghhh!"
Dharma & Greg is a cute, fun show. When it was originally on the air, I didn't care for it much. Even now, while I find it genuinely funny, I can"t help but fear that the pair were kinda thrown together with absolutely no real reason to be together. But, what Kate says above is true: the two DO compliment one another.
This show is a great example of a formula that works so well, it works almost too well; after a while the audience gets bored with the pair being so happy, and DRAMA enters the fray. Unfortunately, I think it was at this point the show was canceled, leaving many fans unhappy.
I found the dialogue and the humor extremely effective in the show, and more so than I remember. The characters are also really fun and well acted, but Dharma is so off the wall she's hard to really get close too; she's so unpredictable I sometimes wonder if on a whim she'll leave Greg for a random street musician.
Overall this is a really fun show, and it's got some good laughs. I think the only thing I really kinda wish is that we understood or saw more of why the two love each other so much--while love at first sight it fantastic and wonderful and romantic, it doesn't do a whole lot for character development.
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Friday, January 14, 2011
Friends
Mike says that Friends was a large part of my high school years. Ross and Rachel were a topic of constant lunch discussion, and taped episodes were passed in the halls with the sacredness of test notes.
Watching it now, several years later, I understand the show a little differently: the joy of hanging out with a balanced group of friends, the support they can lend, and the natural pitfalls of life. Friends was a smartly written and well conceived show. I was also surprised that something I always thought cropped up by accident, the Ross/Rachel saga of drama, was actually something written into the show and implied from the first episode. Although, I don't think even the writers knew what a tangled mess THAT would become.
I had also forgotten just how funny the show could be. The clever side comments, the spot on men/women differences, and the interactions of the characters. Several times I found myself laughing out loud, which honestly is something I don't do often while watching TV.
While Friends did have its ups and downs, I think it's fair to say that it deserves its popularity and place in pop culture history. This is a show that, for better or worse, defined and influenced a generation. Sadly, that place has been eagerly filled by Reality TV these days, making me cringe for the future.
Kate says rewatching Friends reminds me that this show deserves it success.
It isn't my favorite sitcom, and I stopped watching it around Season . . . oh, the one when Chandler and Monica got married. And it isn't the sort of thing I would ever purchase or rent although I will check it out free from the library.
But it is smartly constructed and well-written.
The first thing that strikes me is that the writers lit on the perfect balance of unique-yet-still-can-be-friends characters. And they managed to do it without being too obvious about it. Sitcoms run on typing--the anxious friend, the quiet friend, the manic friend, the friend who steals the show--and the audience knows this, but when it gets too obvious ("I know! We'll make one of the friends a bisexual cop with Yiddish parents!"), it gets a trifle obnoxious.
The Friends friends are all believable types who would believably associate.
I think the other reason the show works is that unlike far too many dramas and sitcoms, the characters' jobs are a huge part of their lives. In many shows, the job IS the sitcom/drama, or the characters have an awesome (as in, I wish I had that much!) amount of free-time to spend at home. But the characters on Friends worry about their jobs and get fired from their jobs and get raises, etc. etc. etc. These real-life troubles make the show relatable even when it isn't so much.
The downside: in retrospect--that is, watching the show now, knowing where it ended up--scenes with Chandler and Monica (even before they became a couple) are just cute.
Watching Ross and Rachel, on the other hand, makes me want to put a fist through something.
Part of this is the writing, but I think part of it is the way the characters convey their troubles. (I don't want to blame the actors who are both reasonably talented since I think, to a degree, the parts were supposed to be played the way they were played. The whole "constant reconciliations followed by constant breakups" motif is palatable to a certain viewing audience. Ewww.)
Here's what I mean:
When Chandler apologizes to Joey for making fun of his "Buddy" bracelet (or to Monica later for, oh, anything), you feel like he really means it. He objectively assesses what he did wrong; he makes up to Joey by taking actual action (he buys another bracelet) and although he retains his Chandleresque irony about the whole event, he does sincerely mean to do better.
And Monica is just as cool. At the beginning of the Chandler/Monica relationship, they have a tiff, and Chandler is convinced the relationship is over. "Oh, honey," Monica said, "that was just a spat. Welcome to a grown-up relationship."
Indeed.
On the other hand, whenever Ross and Rachel apologize to each other, there's always this undertone of "But you just don't understand me enough" or "But I really didn't do anything wrong" or "You should be over being mad" or "But really you're worse than me" stuff going on behind the apologies, and it makes my skin crawl.
I don't give that fictional marriage two seconds. Shoot, they won't even make it to the altar.
But I give Monica and Chandler (and Joey in their garage) a long-term bill of health.
Consequently, I find the non-Ross and Rachel episodes downright delightful, a nice walk down the 90's highway of remembrance (boy, doesn't George Clooney look young!). But this isn't a show I would ever pull Stargate off my shelves to make room for.
Watching it now, several years later, I understand the show a little differently: the joy of hanging out with a balanced group of friends, the support they can lend, and the natural pitfalls of life. Friends was a smartly written and well conceived show. I was also surprised that something I always thought cropped up by accident, the Ross/Rachel saga of drama, was actually something written into the show and implied from the first episode. Although, I don't think even the writers knew what a tangled mess THAT would become.
I had also forgotten just how funny the show could be. The clever side comments, the spot on men/women differences, and the interactions of the characters. Several times I found myself laughing out loud, which honestly is something I don't do often while watching TV.
While Friends did have its ups and downs, I think it's fair to say that it deserves its popularity and place in pop culture history. This is a show that, for better or worse, defined and influenced a generation. Sadly, that place has been eagerly filled by Reality TV these days, making me cringe for the future.
Kate says rewatching Friends reminds me that this show deserves it success.
It isn't my favorite sitcom, and I stopped watching it around Season . . . oh, the one when Chandler and Monica got married. And it isn't the sort of thing I would ever purchase or rent although I will check it out free from the library.
But it is smartly constructed and well-written.
The first thing that strikes me is that the writers lit on the perfect balance of unique-yet-still-can-be-friends characters. And they managed to do it without being too obvious about it. Sitcoms run on typing--the anxious friend, the quiet friend, the manic friend, the friend who steals the show--and the audience knows this, but when it gets too obvious ("I know! We'll make one of the friends a bisexual cop with Yiddish parents!"), it gets a trifle obnoxious.
The Friends friends are all believable types who would believably associate.
I think the other reason the show works is that unlike far too many dramas and sitcoms, the characters' jobs are a huge part of their lives. In many shows, the job IS the sitcom/drama, or the characters have an awesome (as in, I wish I had that much!) amount of free-time to spend at home. But the characters on Friends worry about their jobs and get fired from their jobs and get raises, etc. etc. etc. These real-life troubles make the show relatable even when it isn't so much.
The downside: in retrospect--that is, watching the show now, knowing where it ended up--scenes with Chandler and Monica (even before they became a couple) are just cute.
Watching Ross and Rachel, on the other hand, makes me want to put a fist through something.
Part of this is the writing, but I think part of it is the way the characters convey their troubles. (I don't want to blame the actors who are both reasonably talented since I think, to a degree, the parts were supposed to be played the way they were played. The whole "constant reconciliations followed by constant breakups" motif is palatable to a certain viewing audience. Ewww.)
Here's what I mean:
When Chandler apologizes to Joey for making fun of his "Buddy" bracelet (or to Monica later for, oh, anything), you feel like he really means it. He objectively assesses what he did wrong; he makes up to Joey by taking actual action (he buys another bracelet) and although he retains his Chandleresque irony about the whole event, he does sincerely mean to do better.
And Monica is just as cool. At the beginning of the Chandler/Monica relationship, they have a tiff, and Chandler is convinced the relationship is over. "Oh, honey," Monica said, "that was just a spat. Welcome to a grown-up relationship."
Indeed.
On the other hand, whenever Ross and Rachel apologize to each other, there's always this undertone of "But you just don't understand me enough" or "But I really didn't do anything wrong" or "You should be over being mad" or "But really you're worse than me" stuff going on behind the apologies, and it makes my skin crawl.
I don't give that fictional marriage two seconds. Shoot, they won't even make it to the altar.
But I give Monica and Chandler (and Joey in their garage) a long-term bill of health.
Consequently, I find the non-Ross and Rachel episodes downright delightful, a nice walk down the 90's highway of remembrance (boy, doesn't George Clooney look young!). But this isn't a show I would ever pull Stargate off my shelves to make room for.
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Friday, January 7, 2011
Big Bang Theory
Kate says out of all the sitcoms we've watched so far, this one makes me laugh from the gut. You know the sort of thing: where you laugh so hard, your belly aches. It is also one of the few sitcoms I know (other than Frasier) where the physical humor can be as hilarious as the puns and sarcasm and irony.
On top of the humor (the guys using "lower registered voices" in Penny's apartment; the whole Christmas episode--"It's a Saturnalia miracle!"--Leonard's light-saber), the show is also unbearably cute.
For example:
Sheldon's double shirts. I get a kick out of wondering: Which superhero is he going to wear this episode?
Johnny's Galecki's tilted head. It's SO adorable.
Raj (who looks surprisingly devil-may-care in a beard).
The sci-fi/fantasy references (which I get!)
and
Penny
The last actually surprised me. I tend to be somewhat wary of BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE, and that's the role Penny plays on the show. I've been pleased to find that I can relate to Penny. She isn't just the resident BEAUTIFUL PERSON, she is the voice of female reason. Although most of the time I completely get where the guys are coming from, Penny's no-nonsense attitude can be a breath of fresh air.
In fact, the writers for the show are smart and versatile. One smart aspect of the show is that, from a developmental viewpoint, Leonard and Sheldon's respective personalities make total sense. Leonard, though more sensitive and relationship-oriented than Sheldon, doubts himself, including whether he can be loved. Sheldon, although supposedly less affectionate than Leonard, is surrounded by an affectionate family from his verse-spouting mama to his nick-naming grandmother to his cool-headed sister. He also grew up with a father who paid him a great deal of attention; sure, the guy thought Sheldon was weird, but he did stuff with him every weekend! Consequently, Sheldon is a far more confident person than the more well-rounded Leonard.
And yeah, the show has enough substance to be analyzed like this!
All in all, this is a great comedy!
Mike says I have been waiting for a show like Big Bang Theory all my life, and not just because of the Theme song is performed by BNL.
Growing up as a Geek (identified here as a fan of science-fiction and fantasy-related media across all forums, including video games, comic books, television and movies, and yes, even role playing games), I would scour the world for any references to the things I loved, and would be jubilant at the teeniest nod or, often, coincidental mention.
The early 2000's, therefore, were what you could call a Renaissance for all things Geeky. Not so much in quality, but in quantity and ease of access. With the ascent of comic book movies, suddenly geeks were important!
The trend kind of started with Kevin Smith's Mallrats and just grew from there.
Big Bang Theory is the ultimate result of this. What Rosanne did for trailer trash, and Seinfeld did for Jerks, Big Bang is doing for Geeks, but in a much better way.
And it helps, of course, that the show is BRILLIANT. Like Kate, I get laughing so hard at this show I sometimes end up on the floor. Not only have I known and hung out with people like the guys for most of my life, many times my wife will laugh a little harder then she should while watching it, indicating that I, too, share many of their quirks and behaviors.
The set up for the show is simple, and elegant. The Guys perfectly represent the geek population, and the jokes, references, and over all strong writing of the show make it fun and easy to follow.
Big Bang Theory also has a strong Pilot, and something I especially like, the characters have not changed too much since then. The show was obviously very solidly put together before filming began, and they've stayed true to that vision.
While I sometimes doubt the importance of Penny's character, I agree that the "outsider's view" is a great aspect of the show. But I worry that the on and off romance between Penny and Leonard will potentially overwhelm some of the cooler aspects.
I LOVE Big Bang Theory, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who knows a Geek, is a Geek, or may have seen one once on the street. It shows real people, with real interests, trying their best to live a happy and successful life. Not only is it funny; it's genuine.
On top of the humor (the guys using "lower registered voices" in Penny's apartment; the whole Christmas episode--"It's a Saturnalia miracle!"--Leonard's light-saber), the show is also unbearably cute.
For example:
Sheldon's double shirts. I get a kick out of wondering: Which superhero is he going to wear this episode?
Johnny's Galecki's tilted head. It's SO adorable.
Raj (who looks surprisingly devil-may-care in a beard).
The sci-fi/fantasy references (which I get!)
and
Penny
The last actually surprised me. I tend to be somewhat wary of BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE, and that's the role Penny plays on the show. I've been pleased to find that I can relate to Penny. She isn't just the resident BEAUTIFUL PERSON, she is the voice of female reason. Although most of the time I completely get where the guys are coming from, Penny's no-nonsense attitude can be a breath of fresh air.
In fact, the writers for the show are smart and versatile. One smart aspect of the show is that, from a developmental viewpoint, Leonard and Sheldon's respective personalities make total sense. Leonard, though more sensitive and relationship-oriented than Sheldon, doubts himself, including whether he can be loved. Sheldon, although supposedly less affectionate than Leonard, is surrounded by an affectionate family from his verse-spouting mama to his nick-naming grandmother to his cool-headed sister. He also grew up with a father who paid him a great deal of attention; sure, the guy thought Sheldon was weird, but he did stuff with him every weekend! Consequently, Sheldon is a far more confident person than the more well-rounded Leonard.
And yeah, the show has enough substance to be analyzed like this!
All in all, this is a great comedy!
Mike says I have been waiting for a show like Big Bang Theory all my life, and not just because of the Theme song is performed by BNL.
Growing up as a Geek (identified here as a fan of science-fiction and fantasy-related media across all forums, including video games, comic books, television and movies, and yes, even role playing games), I would scour the world for any references to the things I loved, and would be jubilant at the teeniest nod or, often, coincidental mention.
The early 2000's, therefore, were what you could call a Renaissance for all things Geeky. Not so much in quality, but in quantity and ease of access. With the ascent of comic book movies, suddenly geeks were important!
The trend kind of started with Kevin Smith's Mallrats and just grew from there.
Big Bang Theory is the ultimate result of this. What Rosanne did for trailer trash, and Seinfeld did for Jerks, Big Bang is doing for Geeks, but in a much better way.
And it helps, of course, that the show is BRILLIANT. Like Kate, I get laughing so hard at this show I sometimes end up on the floor. Not only have I known and hung out with people like the guys for most of my life, many times my wife will laugh a little harder then she should while watching it, indicating that I, too, share many of their quirks and behaviors.
The set up for the show is simple, and elegant. The Guys perfectly represent the geek population, and the jokes, references, and over all strong writing of the show make it fun and easy to follow.
Big Bang Theory also has a strong Pilot, and something I especially like, the characters have not changed too much since then. The show was obviously very solidly put together before filming began, and they've stayed true to that vision.
While I sometimes doubt the importance of Penny's character, I agree that the "outsider's view" is a great aspect of the show. But I worry that the on and off romance between Penny and Leonard will potentially overwhelm some of the cooler aspects.
I LOVE Big Bang Theory, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who knows a Geek, is a Geek, or may have seen one once on the street. It shows real people, with real interests, trying their best to live a happy and successful life. Not only is it funny; it's genuine.
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Friday, December 31, 2010
How I Met Your Mother
Mike says I should really like How I Met Your Mother. And I do; but oddly, not for all of the reasons I should. Let me explain.
1.Alyson Hannigan--It's really wonderful to see her on TV again after Buffy and flexing those comedic muscles. Alyson is adorable and is absolutely funny in the show.
2. Serial Storytelling--As I've said before, I'm an addict. Yet the serialized format leading to a conclusion that I don't fully believe was planned makes this show what most serialized shows are accused of: a cheap trick to hook viewers. If it works, the promised ending never comes due to the producers stretching the show and story to last more seasons. When this happens, the story starts breaking down. It's happened many times before, such as with Lost.
3. Nonlinear Storytelling--I'm actually a fan of jumbled timelines. But in this show, while extremely funny, I can't help but feel that it's ripping off Family Guy, and again, it requires the viewer to catch every episode. Now, admittedly, it's odd that I'm arguing this angle of things. While I love serial story telling, I feel that a good deal of planning is required, and I just don't feel this happened with HIMYM. Blindly flying toward an unknown destination that you may never reach will, well, result in something eerily resembling the last eight seasons of Smallville.
4. The Actors--There are actors I love and hate that are a part of this show-yet here they all work, and I enjoy them all.
I really do enjoy HIMYM a lot. It funny, sharp, and goofy. A lot of great moments, including the slap bet and accompanying song, Barney's musical moment praising suits and that narration all make this something worth watching for me. The show also lives up to the promise of its fantastic pilot. Strongly written and a fun and fast introduction to the cast. Oddly though, the main reason I SHOULD watch this show is the main reason I don't. Go figure.
Kate says this is an incredibly cute sitcom. I've kind of lost touch with it over the years, but when it first came out, I was a steady viewer.
It has a surprisingly simple premise. Really, it's just another Friends (although the tone is completely different). But like with Scrubs, the narrator adds another dimension; unlike Friends, there's a single point of view and single purpose. The audience doesn't have to pretend that this ISN'T a sitcom about dating. The whole point is "how he met his wife."
By the way, Mrs. Ted Mosby could still turn out to be Robin. The "dad" is obviously the type of dad who would deliberately throw off his kids, only to come around at the end and say, "But actually, Aunt Robin is someone else! I changed the names to make it interesting!"
In terms of what makes the sitcom work: the actors! I enjoy Friends (which we will review in two weeks), but Friends worked largely due to its script. The actors were largely untried when Friends aired (can you imagine getting a gig like that? wow!).
The H.I.M.Y.M. actors are all tried and true and extremely good. They also, surprisingly enough, fit each other tone-wise. In fact, it's an interesting contrast to Friends because the Friends' friendship is built on proximity and links (Ross knows Chandler who knows Joey) while the H.I.M.Y.M. friendship is built on similar interests and viewpoints (yes, even including Barney). The one type of friendship isn't better than the other or worse, just different. Consequently, the tone and humor is different.
In both cases, the writing is good. One things I like about H.I.M.Y.M is the off-lines. In one episode, Barney refers to the group as "my little friends," and Radnor says deadpan, "We're the same height." I actually think few long-term comedies can work without these small additions. The (smiling) devil really is in the details.
1.Alyson Hannigan--It's really wonderful to see her on TV again after Buffy and flexing those comedic muscles. Alyson is adorable and is absolutely funny in the show.
2. Serial Storytelling--As I've said before, I'm an addict. Yet the serialized format leading to a conclusion that I don't fully believe was planned makes this show what most serialized shows are accused of: a cheap trick to hook viewers. If it works, the promised ending never comes due to the producers stretching the show and story to last more seasons. When this happens, the story starts breaking down. It's happened many times before, such as with Lost.
3. Nonlinear Storytelling--I'm actually a fan of jumbled timelines. But in this show, while extremely funny, I can't help but feel that it's ripping off Family Guy, and again, it requires the viewer to catch every episode. Now, admittedly, it's odd that I'm arguing this angle of things. While I love serial story telling, I feel that a good deal of planning is required, and I just don't feel this happened with HIMYM. Blindly flying toward an unknown destination that you may never reach will, well, result in something eerily resembling the last eight seasons of Smallville.
4. The Actors--There are actors I love and hate that are a part of this show-yet here they all work, and I enjoy them all.
I really do enjoy HIMYM a lot. It funny, sharp, and goofy. A lot of great moments, including the slap bet and accompanying song, Barney's musical moment praising suits and that narration all make this something worth watching for me. The show also lives up to the promise of its fantastic pilot. Strongly written and a fun and fast introduction to the cast. Oddly though, the main reason I SHOULD watch this show is the main reason I don't. Go figure.
Kate says this is an incredibly cute sitcom. I've kind of lost touch with it over the years, but when it first came out, I was a steady viewer.
It has a surprisingly simple premise. Really, it's just another Friends (although the tone is completely different). But like with Scrubs, the narrator adds another dimension; unlike Friends, there's a single point of view and single purpose. The audience doesn't have to pretend that this ISN'T a sitcom about dating. The whole point is "how he met his wife."
By the way, Mrs. Ted Mosby could still turn out to be Robin. The "dad" is obviously the type of dad who would deliberately throw off his kids, only to come around at the end and say, "But actually, Aunt Robin is someone else! I changed the names to make it interesting!"
In terms of what makes the sitcom work: the actors! I enjoy Friends (which we will review in two weeks), but Friends worked largely due to its script. The actors were largely untried when Friends aired (can you imagine getting a gig like that? wow!).
The H.I.M.Y.M. actors are all tried and true and extremely good. They also, surprisingly enough, fit each other tone-wise. In fact, it's an interesting contrast to Friends because the Friends' friendship is built on proximity and links (Ross knows Chandler who knows Joey) while the H.I.M.Y.M. friendship is built on similar interests and viewpoints (yes, even including Barney). The one type of friendship isn't better than the other or worse, just different. Consequently, the tone and humor is different.
In both cases, the writing is good. One things I like about H.I.M.Y.M is the off-lines. In one episode, Barney refers to the group as "my little friends," and Radnor says deadpan, "We're the same height." I actually think few long-term comedies can work without these small additions. The (smiling) devil really is in the details.
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Friday, December 17, 2010
Golden Girls
Kate says I started re-watching Golden Girls recently, and I've found it sweetly relaxing. I put my reaction down to (1) the aging process (seriously, nobody under the age of 30 understands what it is like to hit a landmark age and to have one's body undergo a change without one's permission; I mean, geez, what is that?) and (2) my parents'--specifically my mother's--aging process. In many ways, I've found the show's themes and jokes rather comforting: so women age, so what? That's life.
I'm not sure how that explains Mike's interest, though, so I'll let him explain his point of view!
One point, however: Golden Girls has a talented class of actresses. Have I already mentioned that comedy is the real test of acting? Oh, yes, I have.
Anyway, Bea Arthur is a very good at being the straight-(wo)man; Estelle Getty has the old-woman vaudeville act down pat; Rue McClanahan has great timing (and is one of those women whose beauty is in her bones; boy, that woman aged well); and Betty White, well, Betty White is the best of the bunch. I love her Olaf stories, and I always wonder, "How does she get through that dialog without cracking a smile?" (The stories get more and more outrageous as the seasons unwind.)
The pilot, "The Engagement," is a strong episode. I agree with Mike that it already has a complete/finished feel to it. I also agree that this is due to the actresses' professionalism. The acting has the kind of gloss I usually associate with stage actresses. The writing also has that stage-feeling. Even more so than Cosby or Family Ties, everything centers on the set and the action has to take place through dialog.
The result is that, as with most sitcoms, the characters have to sustain levels of sarcasm, innuendo, and naive cluelessness more than anybody ever does in real life. But that's the nature of the short comedy, and the occasional cynicism is off-set by the overriding thesis: true friendship survives anything.
Mike says that Golden Girls is, more than ever, perhaps my favorite sitcom of all time. The theme song is almost always at the back of my mind, ready to leap forward to my mouth and shock the ladies I work with (Wait, YOU watch that? Yes, yes I do). I'm not elderly, I'm not a woman, and I'm pretty certain that I'm not gay. Yet I love those old girls. And even funnier: I always have.
Now, I was introduced to Golden Girls by my grandmother; a sleep over at her place almost always involved Golden Girls before we went to bed (followed by Empty Nest, of course), and my grandmother being a bit like Dorothy, Blanche, and Sophia all rolled into one (Rose was more like my Papa), well, it was a blast to watch then and even more so now!
I love witty, quick dialog, and I'm almost certain I gained that love from the Girls. To this day, the jokes are fast and fun, the humor outrageous, and almost no topic is off limits. It's fun, it's heartwarming, and WELL WRITTEN.
Upon sitting down to watch the pilot, I realized I had never consciously watched it before--in fact, I couldn't remember how the girls got together at all... After watching it, I realized that not only had I seen it before--it was one of my favorite episodes!
The pilot is well written, funny, an absolute riot, all the while being touching as well. The funny thing is that the layout is no different from any other episode. While there are some introductory statements and explanatory talk, it's so well written that you could easily mistake it for a mid-run episode (The only REAL difference is the gay cook... who must've disappeared by the first "real" episode!)
While I was at it, I decided to watch a flashback episode: "How We Met" or something like that. It was GOOD! and funny. And I realized that while I love serial TV, the Girls don't need it. You feel the bond of their friendship and the strength of their characters from your first viewing: you don't need to build a rapport with them, it's already there, waiting to be claimed.
Golden Girls is, I think, a product of true ensemble work. The ladies worked together to make the show and their performances the best they could be. And it really shows.
The only downside to the show, and the non-serial format, is the Final episode. While a two-parter, the end really feels rushed and comes out of no where. While still great and well written (and tear jerking!), in the end, it just didn't feel liked a planned ending.
But I'll always be thankful to these ladies for being my friends.
I'm not sure how that explains Mike's interest, though, so I'll let him explain his point of view!
One point, however: Golden Girls has a talented class of actresses. Have I already mentioned that comedy is the real test of acting? Oh, yes, I have.
Anyway, Bea Arthur is a very good at being the straight-(wo)man; Estelle Getty has the old-woman vaudeville act down pat; Rue McClanahan has great timing (and is one of those women whose beauty is in her bones; boy, that woman aged well); and Betty White, well, Betty White is the best of the bunch. I love her Olaf stories, and I always wonder, "How does she get through that dialog without cracking a smile?" (The stories get more and more outrageous as the seasons unwind.)
The pilot, "The Engagement," is a strong episode. I agree with Mike that it already has a complete/finished feel to it. I also agree that this is due to the actresses' professionalism. The acting has the kind of gloss I usually associate with stage actresses. The writing also has that stage-feeling. Even more so than Cosby or Family Ties, everything centers on the set and the action has to take place through dialog.
The result is that, as with most sitcoms, the characters have to sustain levels of sarcasm, innuendo, and naive cluelessness more than anybody ever does in real life. But that's the nature of the short comedy, and the occasional cynicism is off-set by the overriding thesis: true friendship survives anything.
Mike says that Golden Girls is, more than ever, perhaps my favorite sitcom of all time. The theme song is almost always at the back of my mind, ready to leap forward to my mouth and shock the ladies I work with (Wait, YOU watch that? Yes, yes I do). I'm not elderly, I'm not a woman, and I'm pretty certain that I'm not gay. Yet I love those old girls. And even funnier: I always have.
Now, I was introduced to Golden Girls by my grandmother; a sleep over at her place almost always involved Golden Girls before we went to bed (followed by Empty Nest, of course), and my grandmother being a bit like Dorothy, Blanche, and Sophia all rolled into one (Rose was more like my Papa), well, it was a blast to watch then and even more so now!
I love witty, quick dialog, and I'm almost certain I gained that love from the Girls. To this day, the jokes are fast and fun, the humor outrageous, and almost no topic is off limits. It's fun, it's heartwarming, and WELL WRITTEN.
Upon sitting down to watch the pilot, I realized I had never consciously watched it before--in fact, I couldn't remember how the girls got together at all... After watching it, I realized that not only had I seen it before--it was one of my favorite episodes!
The pilot is well written, funny, an absolute riot, all the while being touching as well. The funny thing is that the layout is no different from any other episode. While there are some introductory statements and explanatory talk, it's so well written that you could easily mistake it for a mid-run episode (The only REAL difference is the gay cook... who must've disappeared by the first "real" episode!)
While I was at it, I decided to watch a flashback episode: "How We Met" or something like that. It was GOOD! and funny. And I realized that while I love serial TV, the Girls don't need it. You feel the bond of their friendship and the strength of their characters from your first viewing: you don't need to build a rapport with them, it's already there, waiting to be claimed.
Golden Girls is, I think, a product of true ensemble work. The ladies worked together to make the show and their performances the best they could be. And it really shows.
The only downside to the show, and the non-serial format, is the Final episode. While a two-parter, the end really feels rushed and comes out of no where. While still great and well written (and tear jerking!), in the end, it just didn't feel liked a planned ending.
But I'll always be thankful to these ladies for being my friends.
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Friday, December 10, 2010
Bosom Buddies
Mike says that we must have been meant to include this show in our list. Not 2 days after putting it on our list, a random trip to Big Lots yielded a copy of the first season of Bosom Buddies for just $6. Not bad at all!
When I was a kid, for some reason I loved this show (apparently it was in reruns in 1984, and I was 5). So, bolstered by good memories, I slid in the DVD and pressed play, waiting for the familiar theme song... which was not at all what I remembered. And alas, I was reminded of one of those dark truths of DVD collections--sometimes the song rights are too spendy, and they get changed. NO! Ah, well (if you're wondering, the substituted song stinks).
The other thing I realized as I watched the first several episodes was that my memories are foggy at best. But no matter, it's actually a pretty clever show! Modern TV has spoiled us, I realized; Bosom Buddies was made back in the day when there was a Pilot and THEN a show, maybe, and at that point they had to rebuild all the sets and recast some parts if the show was picked up. It's always fun for me to see this change, though it is a little startling as well.
Tom Hanks is great of course, as is Peter Scolari. The show has a fun improv feel, which makes the jokes feel real. The concept is fairly funny as well, with several different SITUATIONS (this is a sit-com, after all) in which fun can be had. The interaction of the boys with the girls is fun, and of course the suspense of whether hormones will win out over secrecy.
Sadly, the show is pretty dated; between the feminist views of the late 70's and early 80's, the clothing, and the film quality, it's hard for a spoiled media consumer to get into the show. But it is delightful in many ways, though not as wholesome as I expected.
Overall, a fun show and a great blast from the past. My only lingering question though: Surely the boys could have found something a little closer to their age bracket for woman's clothing? YIKES! Even for the early 80's the guys are dressed like old ladies! Ah well, at least it's funny.
Kate says the first thing I think of when watching shows from the 80's is how incredibly long the opening credits are! I think it is interesting that opening credits have gotten shorter and shorter and shorter as the decades have rolled along. Numb3rs after Season 2 wins here--here's the title, on to the show!
The other thing I remember is that television used to be a stepping stone to movies after which presumably the actors didn't look back. Bosom Buddies has a truly stunning cast of which a number moved to movies and then returned to television! In any case, Bosom Buddies is a case where the talent definitely outweighs the scripts. The situation is clever and there are downright funny jokes, but the physical humor of Hanks and Scolari is what makes the show work.
In fact, like Cary Grant, Hanks' incredible comedic talents are often masked by his later "serious" movies. He combines deadpan humor with eye-rolling slapstick in a very Cary Grant fashion. Hanks is often perceived as the wholesome All-American boy like James Stewart. But, like Cary Grant, he has that ambiguous edge. (To be fair, James Stewart had an edge too; It's a Wonderful Life kind of overtook his resume.)
A final note: one thing Bosom Buddies does excellently, that other 80's shows don't always, is it avoids being too sentimental. Again, I put that down mostly to Hanks and Scolari. There's always a wink-wink at the back of their humor--which Night Court, despite better scripts, failed to use with everyone except John Larroquette.
Comedy really is the best judge of an actor.
When I was a kid, for some reason I loved this show (apparently it was in reruns in 1984, and I was 5). So, bolstered by good memories, I slid in the DVD and pressed play, waiting for the familiar theme song... which was not at all what I remembered. And alas, I was reminded of one of those dark truths of DVD collections--sometimes the song rights are too spendy, and they get changed. NO! Ah, well (if you're wondering, the substituted song stinks).
The other thing I realized as I watched the first several episodes was that my memories are foggy at best. But no matter, it's actually a pretty clever show! Modern TV has spoiled us, I realized; Bosom Buddies was made back in the day when there was a Pilot and THEN a show, maybe, and at that point they had to rebuild all the sets and recast some parts if the show was picked up. It's always fun for me to see this change, though it is a little startling as well.
Tom Hanks is great of course, as is Peter Scolari. The show has a fun improv feel, which makes the jokes feel real. The concept is fairly funny as well, with several different SITUATIONS (this is a sit-com, after all) in which fun can be had. The interaction of the boys with the girls is fun, and of course the suspense of whether hormones will win out over secrecy.
Sadly, the show is pretty dated; between the feminist views of the late 70's and early 80's, the clothing, and the film quality, it's hard for a spoiled media consumer to get into the show. But it is delightful in many ways, though not as wholesome as I expected.
Overall, a fun show and a great blast from the past. My only lingering question though: Surely the boys could have found something a little closer to their age bracket for woman's clothing? YIKES! Even for the early 80's the guys are dressed like old ladies! Ah well, at least it's funny.
Kate says the first thing I think of when watching shows from the 80's is how incredibly long the opening credits are! I think it is interesting that opening credits have gotten shorter and shorter and shorter as the decades have rolled along. Numb3rs after Season 2 wins here--here's the title, on to the show!
The other thing I remember is that television used to be a stepping stone to movies after which presumably the actors didn't look back. Bosom Buddies has a truly stunning cast of which a number moved to movies and then returned to television! In any case, Bosom Buddies is a case where the talent definitely outweighs the scripts. The situation is clever and there are downright funny jokes, but the physical humor of Hanks and Scolari is what makes the show work.
In fact, like Cary Grant, Hanks' incredible comedic talents are often masked by his later "serious" movies. He combines deadpan humor with eye-rolling slapstick in a very Cary Grant fashion. Hanks is often perceived as the wholesome All-American boy like James Stewart. But, like Cary Grant, he has that ambiguous edge. (To be fair, James Stewart had an edge too; It's a Wonderful Life kind of overtook his resume.)
A final note: one thing Bosom Buddies does excellently, that other 80's shows don't always, is it avoids being too sentimental. Again, I put that down mostly to Hanks and Scolari. There's always a wink-wink at the back of their humor--which Night Court, despite better scripts, failed to use with everyone except John Larroquette.
Comedy really is the best judge of an actor.
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Friday, December 3, 2010
New List: Sitcoms
Here's the new list! This list features American sitcoms with the themes of friends (first five) and family (second four):
1. Bosom Buddies: Review December 10th
2. Golden Girls: Review December 17th
BREAK: MERRY CHRISTMAS! 3. How I Met Your Mother: Review December 31st
4. Big Bang Theory: Review January 7th
5. Friends: Review January 14th
6. Dharma & Greg (cross-over between friend-oriented sitcoms and family-oriented sitcoms): Review January 21st
7. Family Ties: Review January 28th
8. Cosby: Review February 4th
9. Full House: Review February 11th
10. Home Improvement: Review February 18th
Our plan is to watch the pilot and then review a selection (our choice) to report on. Please feel free to do the same!
We have also planned a combination book/movie review. At this point, the book or novellas are Stephen King's "The Body" and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" followed by their respective movies: Stand by Me and The Shawshank Redemption. We will announce the date(s) for the book/movie review soon, but if you intend to read along, go ahead and get started! (Both novellas can be found in the collection Different Seasons.)
1. Bosom Buddies: Review December 10th
2. Golden Girls: Review December 17th
4. Big Bang Theory: Review January 7th
5. Friends: Review January 14th
6. Dharma & Greg (cross-over between friend-oriented sitcoms and family-oriented sitcoms): Review January 21st
7. Family Ties: Review January 28th
8. Cosby: Review February 4th
9. Full House: Review February 11th
10. Home Improvement: Review February 18th
Our plan is to watch the pilot and then review a selection (our choice) to report on. Please feel free to do the same!
We have also planned a combination book/movie review. At this point, the book or novellas are Stephen King's "The Body" and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" followed by their respective movies: Stand by Me and The Shawshank Redemption. We will announce the date(s) for the book/movie review soon, but if you intend to read along, go ahead and get started! (Both novellas can be found in the collection Different Seasons.)
Labels:
List4,
Sitcoms,
Television
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)